Electrospinning Versus Chemical Polymerization for Conductive Polymer Fibers: Reproducibility, Electrical Performance and Wearable Sensing
- 1Chemical Engineering Department, Institute for Materials Research and Innovation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, P.O. Box 44130, Lafayette, LA 70504-4130, USA
Abstract
Conductive polymers (CPs) such as polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (PPy) and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) combine electronic function with the processability of plastics, and one-dimensional CP fibers add high surface area and directional charge transport. This review compares chemical oxidative polymerization and electrospinning against three criteria: how fiber geometry is reported and controlled, electrical performance, and wearable-sensor behavior. The comparison separates the chemistry that forms the polymer from the operation that forms the fiber, because the two are frequently conflated. Fiber diameter is reported as a numeric range wherever a dedicated spinning step defines it, whether by electrospinning or by wet spinning, and qualitatively where the fiber forms by precipitation during polymerization. This is a difference in reporting practice and in dimensional uniformity; it is not evidence of batch to batch or inter-laboratory reproducibility, for which no data were found for either route. Electrical comparison is complicated by measurement geometry, since single-fiber, mat, pellet and sheet-resistance values span one to three orders of magnitude across the surveyed literature and are not interchangeable. Where a single study varies one factor at a time, carrier removal and post-spinning conversion recover much of the apparent electrical deficit of electrospun fibers. Reported wearable-sensing metrics are not comparable across transduction modes, and the surveyed devices differ in composition and added conductive phases, so no ranking by fabrication route is drawn. The two routes are complementary: chemical polymerization supplies the conducting phase and scales by batch volume, while electrospinning sets the fiber architecture.
Related
- One‐Pot Synthesis of Aqueous PEDOT‐Based Conductive Inks via Sequential RAFT/Oxidative Polymerization
- High-Performance Chemiresistive Humidity Sensing and Quantum Isotopic Differentiation with Single Crystals of a Conductive MOF Hosting Electron Spin Qubits
- Flexible Strain Sensor Based on TPU/CNTs/rGO Conductive Membrane with Dual-Microcrack Structure for High-Performance Wearable Sensing
- Comparative assessment of Au- and Ag-based SERS substrates for cancer and disease diagnosis: A review on analytical performance, reproducibility, and practical challenges
- Effects of Post-Added Alcohol Modifiers on Magnesium Ethoxide Support on Ziegler–Natta Catalyst and Propylene Polymerization Performance
BibTeX
@article{bashir2026electrospinning,
title = {{Electrospinning Versus Chemical Polymerization for Conductive Polymer Fibers: Reproducibility, Electrical Performance and Wearable Sensing}},
author = {Abdullah Bin Bashir and Dilip Depan},
journal = {Polymers},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/polym18212730},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/21/2730},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Electrospinning Versus Chemical Polymerization for Conductive Polymer Fibers: Reproducibility, Electrical Performance and Wearable Sensing
AU - Abdullah Bin Bashir
AU - Dilip Depan
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Polymers
DO - 10.3390/polym18212730
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/18/21/2730
AB - Conductive polymers (CPs) such as polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (PPy) and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) combine electronic function with the processability of plastics, and one-dimensional CP fibers add high surface area and directional charge transport. This review compares chemical oxidative polymerization and electrospinning against three criteria: how fiber geometry is reported and controlled, electrical performance, and wearable-sensor behavior. The comparison separates the chemistry that forms the polymer from the operation that forms the fiber, because the two are frequently conflated. Fiber diameter is reported as a numeric range wherever a dedicated spinning step defines it, whether by electrospinning or by wet spinning, and qualitatively where the fiber forms by precipitation during polymerization. This is a difference in reporting practice and in dimensional uniformity; it is not evidence of batch to batch or inter-laboratory reproducibility, for which no data were found for either route. Electrical comparison is complicated by measurement geometry, since single-fiber, mat, pellet and sheet-resistance values span one to three orders of magnitude across the surveyed literature and are not interchangeable. Where a single study varies one factor at a time, carrier removal and post-spinning conversion recover much of the apparent electrical deficit of electrospun fibers. Reported wearable-sensing metrics are not comparable across transduction modes, and the surveyed devices differ in composition and added conductive phases, so no ranking by fabrication route is drawn. The two routes are complementary: chemical polymerization supplies the conducting phase and scales by batch volume, while electrospinning sets the fiber architecture.
SN - 2073-4360
ER -